By Amber R. Crowell & Mark A. Fossett

This monograph builds on innovations in segregation measurement and analysis, previously developed by one of the authors of this book, by conducting empirical analyses of racial and ethnic residential segregation across a wide and comprehen-sive selection of communities in the United States. Past studies of residential segregation have been limited by a well-known and difficult challenge, which is that most segregation indices are prone to a sometimes very problematic upward bias that inflates segregation scores and makes it difficult to measure segregation at a single point in time, follow segregation patterns over time, and compare segregation across groups and communities. These problems are worse when using small spatial units such as census blocks, when the groups in the analysis are extremely imbal-anced in size, and when population counts are small. This has resulted in a literature that is heavily focused on segregation in a selection of the largest urban metropolitan environments, with only limited studies focused on nonmetropolitan communities or small racial and ethnic populations. Even so, restrictive case selections do not directly solve the problem of index bias. Fortunately, we have the solution to index bias, in addition to other solutions that address related problems with segre-gation measurement, which allow us to reanalyze residential segregation patterns and include more communities and contexts. In this book, we examine White-Black, White-Latino, and White-Asian residential segregation across metropolitan, micro-politan, and noncore county communities from 1990 to 2010, giving special atten-tion to how our findings may differ from what previous studies have found with measures that were not corrected for index bias and other related issues. We find that under the conditions where index bias is less likely to be a problem, our results track those from previous studies. But these communities do not make up the majority of cases, and in most communities our findings deviate in substantial ways from previous findings. We also employ new methods for linking micro-level processes of locational attainments to overall segregation patterns and develop a more complex understanding of residential segregation dynamics. This leads us to conclude that it is important to use our findings as benchmarks for residential segregation patterns over this time period and to adopt the methods of measurement and analysis that we endorse throughout this book for residential segregation research. 

United States, Springer. 2023, 260pg

By Jessica M. Eaglin 

There is widespread recognition that algorithms in criminal law’s administration can impose negative racial and social effects. Scholars tend to offer two ways to address this concern through law—tinkering around the tools or abolishing the tools through law and policy. This Article contends that these paradigmatic interventions, though they may center racial disparities, legitimate the way race functions to structure society through the intersection of technology and law. In adopting a theoretical lens centered on racism and the law, it reveals deeply embedded social assumptions about race that propel algorithms as criminal legal reform in response to mass incarceration. It further explains how these same assumptions normalize the socially and historically contingent process of producing race and racial hierarchy in society through law. Normatively, this Article rejects the notion that tinkering around or facilitating the abolition of algorithms present the only viable solutions in law. Rather, it calls upon legal scholars to consider directly how to use the law to challenge the production of racial hierarchy at the intersection of technology and society. This Article proposes shifting the legal discourse on algorithms as criminal legal reform to critically center racism as an important step in this larger project moving forward. 

United States, California Law Review. 2023, 47pg

By Ihar Paulau

The large growth of the United States’ criminal legal system in the late 20th century brought a widening racial gap in incarceration.1 By the year 2000, Black people made up almost half of the state prison population but only about 13% of the U.S.2 population. And although a wave of changes to sentencing and corrections policies over the past two decades has helped lessen disparities in federal and state prisons, Black adults still were imprisoned in 2020 at five times the rate for White adults.3

Far less is known, however, about racial and ethnic disparities in the country’s approximately 3,000 local jails.4 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports show that the gap in the rate of jail incarceration between Black and White people dropped by 22% between 2011 and 2021.5 However, these reports contain no race or ethnicity data on critical topics such as admissions or lengths of stay and little or no information about the severity or types of criminal charges for people in jail either in the aggregate or broken down by race, age, or other demographics.

The lack of detailed and timely data on who is in jail, for how long, and why led The Pew Charitable Trusts to partner with the Jail Data Initiative (JDI), an up-to-date source of data from approximately 1,300 of the nation’s nearly 3,000 jails created by the New York University Public Safety Lab, and the Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College, which conducts research to help local-level criminal justice decision-makers identify areas for reform.6 Although JDI is not necessarily nationally representative, it is the only publicly available source of near real-time data featuring a substantial sample of jails throughout the country. Additionally, DCJ collected and analyzed in-depth demographic and offense data for different racial and ethnic groups across jails in three counties—Durham, North Carolina; Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky; and St. Louis, Missouri—some of which is unavailable in the JDI database.7

Using the data from JDI, Pew researchers examined race in recent jail populations, admissions, and lengths of stay. Of the JDI data set, 595 jails had data for 2022, and within those facilities, Black people made up, on average, 12% of the local community populations but more than double that, 26%, of the jail populations. Additionally, although the jail population decreased nationally during the early months of COVID-19 in 2020, the previous 10-year trend of declining racial disparities in jails may have reversed as the pandemic progressed. Between March 2020 and December 2022, the average number of White people in jail increased by less than 1% compared with an increase of 8% for Black people in 349 jails from the JDI database that had complete data for that period.

Two factors, how many people go to jail and how long they stay, determine jail populations.8 As of 2022, Black people were admitted to jail at more than four times the rate of White people and stayed in jail for 12 more days on average across the 595-jail sample, contributing to the larger increase in population observed for Black individuals.

The findings from the three counties in the DCJ study reflect similar admissions and length of stay disparities broadly and across several metrics:

• In 2019, in all three counties Black people were admitted to jail at a rate at least double—and up to six times—that of White or Hispanic people and spent up to 12 days longer in jail than White people.

• Black people were admitted to jail at a higher rate than other groups for both misdemeanors and felonies in all three counties and typically spent the most time in jail for felonies.

• Racial disparities in admissions to jail and length of stay were largest among younger adults.

• Black men and Black women both had considerably higher admission rates than their White or Hispanic counterparts, but the length-of-stay gap was greater among men than women.

Although the findings in this brief are specific to the jails studied, they nevertheless demonstrate that significant disparities exist in many facilities. However, because jails are local and people are sent to jail for many reasons, identifying and understanding persistent racial and ethnic gaps nationally and at the local level will require further data collection and analysis, as well as collaboration across multiple jurisdictions and data systems. Individual localities may find that the disparities in their jail populations and the factors that influence those gaps are different and will require tailored solutions.

United States, A brief from Pew. 2023, 19pg

By Russell M. Gold and Kay L. Levine

For decades police and prosecutors have controlled the public narrative about criminal law—littering the news landscape with salacious stories of violent crimes while ignoring the more mundane but far more prevalent minor cases that clog the court dockets. Defenders, faced with overwhelming caseloads and fear that speaking out may harm their clients, have largely ceded the opportunity to offer a counternarrative based on what they see every day. Defenders tell each other about overuse of pretrial detention, intensive pressure to plead guilty, overzealous prosecutors, cycles of violence, and rampant constitutional violations— all of which inflict severe harm on defendants and their loved ones. But defenders rarely show the public the world they inhabit.

That approach hasn’t stopped the carceral state from ballooning over the past fifty years; public defense budgets remain paltry, and clients suffer from too much law and too little justice in a system that disregards and dehumanizes them. This Article encourages defenders to go on the offensive, to seek transformative change toward a more just legal system. It builds on the social media literature to analyze how defenders can strategically use social networking sites to add their expertise to ongoing public debates about crime and criminal justice policy. As a few existing efforts suggest, social media enables defenders to widely share the routine injustices they observe and to engage with local grassroots organizations to build coalitions. Defenders’ strategic use of social media won’t change policies overnight, but we are hopeful that it will augment public support for defenders and their clients and build power to transform the criminal legal landscape over decades.

Gold, Russell M. and Levine, Kay L., The Public Voice of the Defender (July 14, 2023). 75 Alabama Law Review (Forthcoming), U of Alabama Legal Studies Research Paper #4416723, Emory Legal Studies Research Paper No. 23-4,

Edited by Chris Cunneen, Antje Deckert, Amanda Porter, Juan Tauri and Robert Webb

The Routledge International Handbook on Decolonizing Justice focuses on the growing worldwide movement aimed at decolonizing state policies and practices, and various disciplinary knowledges including criminology, social work and law. The collection of original chapters brings together cutting-edge, politically engaged work from a diverse group of writers who take as a starting point an analysis founded in a decolonizing, decolonial and/or Indigenous standpoint. Centering the perspectives of Black, First Nations and other racialized and minoritized peoples, the book makes an internationally significant contribution to the literature.

The chapters include analyses of specific decolonization policies and interventions instigated by communities to enhance jurisdictional self-determination; theoretical approaches to decolonization; the importance of research and research ethics as a key foundation of the decolonization process; crucial contemporary issues including deaths in custody, state crime, reparations, and transitional justice; and critical analysis of key institutions of control, including police, courts, corrections, child protection systems and other forms of carcerality.

The handbook is divided into five sections which reflect the breadth of the decolonizing literature:

• Why decolonization? From the personal to the global

• State terror and violence

• Abolishing the carceral

• Transforming and decolonizing justice

• Disrupting epistemic violence

This book offers a comprehensive and timely resource for activists, students, academics, and those with an interest in Indigenous studies, decolonial and post-colonial studies, criminal legal institutions and criminology. It provides critical commentary and analyses of the major issues for enhancing social justice internationally.

London; New York: Routledge, 571p.

By Hannah Jeffery

This briefing seeks to inform the development of the Specialist Sexual Violence Court (SSVC) pilots and other projects to address the response to sexual violence in the criminal justice system.

It introduces the challenges that the system faces in processing sexual violence cases and the barriers experienced by victim-survivors. Through qualitative interviews with Independent Sexual Violence Advocates, and drawing on the policy landscape and the evidence-base, we outline six considerations for implementing SSVC pilots in the UK.

London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2022. 13p.

By Kim Thomas

Summary The Prevention of Organised Crime Act’s anti-gang provisions are not meeting their objectives. They were originally meant to fill the gaps in common law and help prosecutors gain convictions for gang-related crimes. But the act is severely underutilised for these specific crimes. For this paper’s recommendations to have a substantial effect on addressing organised crime, the various departments involved in South Africa’s criminal justice process need to be cleaned up and resources improved. Key points • Post-apartheid South Africa experienced an increase in organised crime and gangrelated activity. The South African legislature responded with enacting the Prevention of Organised Crime Act in 1999 and specifically addressed criminal gang activity, money laundering and racketeering. • Over 20 years later, very few gang-related cases have been prosecuted under this legislation. Most gang activity is still prosecuted under common law and other legislation. • Interviews with key stakeholders reveal that the main cause for failed/limited implementation lies in the scarcity of human resources, skills and training across the South African Police Service, National Prosecuting Authority and Crime Intelligence, and the lack of meaningful cooperation among them. • Further shortfalls of the act include a lack of provision for targeting gang leaders and Research Paper weak sentencing

ENACT-Africa, 2023. 32p.

By Christopher Lowenkamp, Matthew DeMichele, and Lauren Klein Warren

This report presents findings related to impacts associated with criminal justice improvements underway in Lucas County, Ohio. The current report, however, focuses on impacts related to one of Lucas County’s initiatives - the use of the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). The report shows that Lucas County made serious reductions to the number of people booked into jail during the post-PSA period. For the entire seven-year study period, of those released pretrial, 27% experienced a failure to appear (FTA), 17% were arrested for any offense, and 5% were arrested for a violent offense during the pretrial period. There were reductions in the pretrial outcomes between the pre- and post-PSA periods: a six-percentage point decrease in FTA rates (30% vs. 24%), a five-percentage point decrease in new criminal arrest (NCA) rates (20% vs. 15%) and a two-percentage point decrease in new violent criminal arrest (NVCA) rates (6% vs. 4%). The results demonstrate that the PSA meets standards of predictive validity. For the three scales, we found that the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values are in the good (NCA) and fair (NVCA and FTA) ranges, there is incremental increase in failures as scores increase, and significant increases in the predicted likelihood of failure as scores increase across a series of regression models. The report shows that the PSA meets validity standards used for criminal justice assessments, and the report includes tests for predictive bias.

Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, 2020. 84p.

By Don Stemen and David Olson

Bail reform efforts across the United States have accelerated in recent years, driven by concerns about the overuse of monetary bail, the potentially disparate impact of pretrial detention on poor and minority defendants, and the effects of bail decisions on local jail populations. Proponents of bail reform advocate for reducing or eliminating the use of monetary bail, arguing that many defendants are held in jail pretrial solely because they cannot afford to post bail. Opponents counter that reducing the use of monetary bail or increasing the number of people released pretrial could result in more defendants failing to appear for court hearings (FTAs) or committing crimes while on pretrial release. Evaluations of recent bail reform efforts indicate that these efforts have not been associated with increases in new criminal activity….. A debate has played out in the media regarding the link between GO18.8A, the types of individuals released pretrial, and the number and percent of individuals charged with a new crime while on pretrial release. The debate centers around an evaluation of GO18.8A conducted by the Office of the Chief Judge (OCJ).5 The OCJ’s evaluation found that the number and percent of felony defendants released pretrial increased after GO18.8A but that the percent of felony defendants charged with a new crime while on pretrial release was similar before and after GO18.8A. Subsequent analyses by the media6 and academics7 suggested that the OCJ’s evaluation underestimated the percent of defendants charged with a new crime after GO18.8A. …. These critiques suggested that GO18.8A may have led to an increase in new criminal activity of those released pretrial and contributed directly to increases in crime in Chicago and Cook County. These subsequent analyses, however, also suffer from methodological problems similar to those in the OCJ’s evaluation. By relying on the same public data collected and distributed by the OCJ, these analyses were unable to correct for the critiques made of the OCJ’s analyses – namely a truncated follow-up period and a failure to account for seasonality – without making assumptions about, and estimations of, underlying recidivism rates of those released.8 More importantly, the analyses were unable to verify or refute the OCJ’s analyses of bond court decisions, release rates, or new criminal activity through the independent analysis of defendant- and charge-level court or jail data. As a result of these methodological shortcomings and contradictory findings, the actual impact of GO18.8A remains unclear. ….

Chicago: Loyola University Chicago, 2020. 34p

By James Hess and Susan Turner

Jurisdictions across the country have joined a movement to rethink how individuals are handled at the pretrial stage of case processing. Although alternatives to cash bail systems have been around since the 1960s, 1 renewed interest has focused on the use of risk assessment algorithms to help determine which pretrial individuals might be released safely into the community. These types of tools hold promise as a means to move away from “debtor prisons” for individuals who do not have the financial resources to pay for their release. However, the field is still in the relatively early stage of testing these tools for predictive ability, potential racial bias in administration, as well as whether their use actually reduces incarceration.2 California has recently entered the pretrial risk assessment arena. Senate Bill 10 was passed in 2018 to change from a cash-based pretrial system to a risk-based release and detention system; although it is on hold until November 2020 when California voters determine its fate. 3 However, legislation passed as part of the 2019 Budget Act created a pilot program to test the use of various risk assessment tools in a number of counties across California. This report presents findings from the Los Angeles pilot effort under the Act to validate the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). The PSA is a risk assessment instrument developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to inform pretrial judicial decisions on whether to release or detain a defendant. The tool predicts three outcomes after pretrial release: Failure to Appear (FTA); New Criminal Activity (NCA, arrest on any misdemeanor or felony charge); and New Violent Criminal Activity (NVCA, arrest on a violent misdemeanor or felony charge). The tool’s nine risk factors include prior convictions, incarceration, and failures to appear, violent offenses, pending cases at the time of arrest and age. Risk factor counts are weighted by an integer multiplier and summed to create a risk score. Several sets of adjacent scores are collapsed together into one score to produce a final 6-point risk scale for each of the outcomes.

Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2021. 103p

By Julien Grenet, Hans Grönqvist and Susan Niknami

Electronic monitoring (EM) is a popular instrument to reduce large prison populations. Evidence on the effects of EM on criminal recidivism is, however, limited and it is unclear how this alternative to incarceration affects the labor market outcomes of offenders. Moreover, little is known about potential spillover effects on family members. We study the introduction of EM in Sweden in 1997 wherein offenders sentenced to up to three months in prison were given the possibility to avoid entering prison by substituting to EM. Our difference-in-differences estimates comparing the change in the prison inflow rate of eligible offenders to that of non-eligible offenders with slightly longer sentences show that the reform dramatically decreased incarcerations. Our main finding is that EM lowers criminal recidivism and improves offenders’ labor market outcomes. There is also some evidence of improvements in the short and intermediate run outcomes of the children of the offenders. The main channels through which EM operates seem to be by allowing offenders to maintain regular work and potentially also by reducing employer discrimination. Our calculations suggest that the social benefits of EM are at least six to nine times larger than the fiscal savings from reduced prison expenditure. This makes the welfare improvements from EM potentially much greater than what has been previously recognized.

Paris: Paris School of Economics, 2022. 41p.

By Alicia Virani

Electronic monitoring is a system that uses a GPS-equipped ankle monitor, to track, monitor, record and analyze the location of people accused or convicted of a crime who are placed on house arrest. Los Angeles County currently has two electronic monitoring (EM) programs. The first, which has been in existence for decades, is the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) that operates across all twenty-four criminal courthouses in the County and can be used for individuals both pretrial and post-sentence. The second, which began in 2020, is called the Supervised Release Program (SRP) and is a pilot program that operates out of two courthouses in Los Angeles County and is only used for individuals pretrial. Both programs are operated by the Los Angeles County Probation Department….

Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, 2022. 24p.

By Brandon L. Garrett, William E. Crozier, Kevin Dahaghi, Elizabeth J. Gifford, Catherine Grodensky, Adele Quigley-McBride & Jennifer Teitcher

Where the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved without a trial, the criminal system in the United States is a system of pleas, not trials. While a plea, its terms, and the resulting sentence entered in court are all public, how the outcome was negotiated remains almost entirely nonpublic. Prosecutors may resolve cases for reasons that are benign, thoughtful, and well-calibrated—or discriminatory, self-interested, and arbitrary—with very little oversight or sunlight. For years, academics and policymakers have called for meaningful data to fill this crucial void. In this Article, we open the “black box” of prosecutorial discretion by tasking prosecutors with documenting detailed case-level information concerning plea bargaining. This is not a hypothetical or conceptual exercise, but rather the product of theory, design, and implementation work by an interdisciplinary team. We collected systematic data from two prosecutors’ offices for one year. The Article describes how the data-collection methodology was designed, piloted, and implemented, as well as the insights that have been generated. Our system can be readily adapted to other offices and jurisdictions. We conclude by discussing how documenting the plea-bargaining process can affect prosecution practices, defense lawyering, judicial oversight, and public policy, its constitutional and ethical implications, and its broader implications for democratic legitimacy. An open-prosecution approach is feasible and, for the first time in the United States, it is in operation.

75 STAN. L.REV. 1365 (2023)

By Brian J. Ostrom and Jordan Bowman

Since Gideon v. Wainwright, the provision of an attorney to a criminal defendant is an accepted constitutional right. The past 50 years has witnessed the ongoing development by defense practitioners of what it means to “provide the effective assistance of counsel” through strong legal advocacy. More recently, many practitioners contend that in addition to the defense attorney, professional support services, such as social workers, paralegals, and criminal investigators, are critical to effective assistance of counsel in indigent defense cases. Investment by defender offices in resources and skills beyond traditional legal expertise promises to bring positive returns not just for clients, but for the criminal justice system and taxpayers as well. The umbrella of what we will call the holistic defense model covers the most developed concepts and practices of an integrated defense team. Proponents of holistic defense claim a wide range of enhanced client outcomes including more favorable court dispositions and successful treatment for recurring needs (e.g., addiction, joblessness, mental illness) as well as associated public benefits such as reduced recidivism and less reliance on costly incarceration. As positive as these meritorious claims may be, the current dearth of rigorous evaluative research means they remain unverified

Williamsburg, Virginia, National Center for State Courts, 2019. 53p.

By Becca Cadoff, Preeti Chauha, Erica Bond,

• Misdemeanor Arrest Rates: The misdemeanor arrest rates in all Research Network jurisdictions decreased in recent years. These declines often followed a period of significant increases in misdemeanor enforcement. • Misdemeanor Arrests by Race: Black people were arrested at the highest rates of any racial/ ethnic group for all jurisdictions across the entire study period. Racial disparities between Black people and White people existed in all jurisdictions, and these disparities persisted despite the recent overall declines in arrest rates. However, the magnitude of the disparities varied by jurisdiction and over time -- ranging from approximately three to seven arrests of Black people for one arrest of a White person. • Misdemeanor Arrests by Age: Arrest rates were highest for younger age groups (i.e., 18-20-year-olds and 21-24-year-olds) at the beginning of the study period. At the same time, arrest rates were generally much lower for the oldest age group (i.e., 35-65-year-olds). Over time, arrest rates for the younger age groups fell the most, sometimes to rates lower than 25-34-year-olds. • Misdemeanor Arrests by Sex: Males were arrested at higher rates than females in all jurisdictions across the study period. Although the arrest rates for males fell more than for females, this gender gap in arrest rates persisted over the study period. • Misdemeanor Arrests by Charge: Within the context of fluctuating misdemeanor arrests, the composition of misdemeanor charges changed over time across most sites. Cross-jurisdiction trends indicate a move away from more discretionary, drug-related charges and an increase in the share of charges where there is an identifiable complainant or victim (“person-related” offenses)….

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice , 2020. 34p.

By North Carolina School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Law

In 2015, former Chief Justice Mark Martin convened the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law & Justice and tasked it with making recommendations to strengthen the state’s court system. In 2017, that Commission released its reports, including a recommendation that North Carolina embark on pilot projects supporting evidence-based pretrial justice reform.2 With the support of the Director of the NC Administrative Office of the Courts,3 North Carolina Judicial District 30B (JD 30B) became the state’s first such pilot project. The JD 30B pretrial justice pilot project sought to improve the district’s pretrial system, promoting public safety, efficient use of taxpayer resources, and fairness of the judicial process. The project had two core components: (1) developing and implementing consensus pretrial system reforms; and (2) an empirical evaluation to assess the impact of those reforms. In the project’s first effort, JD 30B stakeholders unanimously agreed to reforms including: • Implement a new decision-making framework for determining conditions of pretrial release. • Provide first appearance proceedings for all in-custody defendants. • Provide for the early involvement of counsel at pretrial proceedings.  • Promote the increased use of summons in lieu of arrest in appropriate cases. • Promote the increased use of citation in lieu of arrest in appropriate cases. Reforms took effect January 1, 2019. Part II of this report details the findings from an empirical evaluation of the project.

Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina School of Government, 2020. 15p. 55p.

Part I: Background, Process & Implemented Reforms March 20201 [PDF]

Part II: Final Evaluation Report  [PDF]

By American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana

For two years, the ACLU of Louisiana gathered and analyzed thousands of jail records and interviewed people directly affected by pretrial incarceration to compose a snapshot of who Louisiana incarcerates pretrial, for how long, and at what cost. The landmark report – Justice Can't Wait – showed that after a 10.3 percent increase, Louisiana’s pretrial incarceration rate is now three times the national average and the highest of any state on record since 1970. The study, based on an analysis of thousands of jail records, found that 57 percent of people in jail had been arrested for non-violent offenses and that pretrial incarceration costs Louisiana taxpayers nearly $290 million per year. On average, the people represented in the study had been held behind bars for 5 and a half months – without trial or conviction.

New Orleans: ACLU of Louisiana, 2022. 44p.

By Will Dobbie and Crystal S. Yang

  We measure the economic costs of the US pretrial system using several complementary approaches and data sources. The pretrial system operates as one of the earliest points of entry in the criminal justice system. It typically represents an individual’s first opportunity to be incarcerated, potentially leading to subsequent long-term damage in the form of family separation, work interruption, loss of housing, and so on. We find that individuals lose almost $30,000 in forgone earnings and social benefits when detained in jail while awaiting the resolution of their criminal cases. These adverse consequences are also present in aggregate measures of economic well-being, with increases in county pretrial detention rates associated with increases in poverty rates and decreases in employment rates. Counties with high levels of pretrial detention also exhibit significantly lower levels of intergenerational mobility among children, consistent with pretrial detention having an adverse impact on young children who may be the dependents of individuals affected by the pretrial system.

Washington DC: Brookings,, 2021. 41p.

By Katherine Hood, Daniel Schneider

  Despite growing interest in bail and pretrial detention among both academic researchers and policymakers, systematic research on pretrial release remains limited. In this article, we examine bail and pretrial release practices across seventy-five large U.S. counties from 1990 to 2009 and look at the contextual correlates of bail regime severity. We find tremendous intra-county variation in bail practices, as well as a nationwide decline in the use of nonfinancial release and doubling of bail amounts during this period. This variation is not accounted for by differences in case composition across jurisdictions or over time. Patterns of bail practices are associated with political, socioeconomic, and demographic factors, however. Implications of these findings for future research on bail and pretrial detention are discussed.  

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 1,  (February 2019), pp. 126-149

By John William Wertheimer

Race and the Law in South Carolina carefully reconstructs the social history behind six legal disputes heard in the South Carolina courts between the 1840s and the 1940s. The book uses these case studies to probe the complex relationship between race and the law in the American South during a century that included slavery, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow. Throughout most of the period covered in the book, the South Carolina legal system obsessively drew racial lines, always to the detriment of nonwhite people. Occasionally, however, the legal system also provided a public forum—perhaps the region’s best—within which racism could openly be challenged. The book emphasizes how dramatically the degree of legal oppressiveness experienced by Black South Carolinians varied during the century under study, based largely on the degree of Black access to political and legal power. During the era of slavery, both enslaved and nominally “free” Black South Carolinians suffered extreme legal disenfranchisement. They had no political voice and precious little access to legal redress. They could not vote, serve in public office, sit on juries, or testify in court against whites. There were no Black lawyers. Black South Carolinians had essentially no claims-making ability, resulting, unsurprisingly, in a deeply oppressive, thoroughly racialized system. Most of these antebellum legal disenfranchisements were overturned during the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. In the wake of abolition, Reconstruction-era reformers in South Carolina erased one racial distinction after another from state law. For a time, Black men voted and Black jurors sat in rough proportion to their share of the state’s population. ……

Amherst, MA: Amherst College Press, 2023.  346p.